Gun control advocates were buoyed Thursday by a federal court decision in Hartford that upholds Connecticut's toughest-in-the-nation assault weapons ban, calling it a constitutionally valid means of balancing gun rights and the government's interest in reducing gun violence."The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional," senior U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello wrote in a decision published late Thursday. "While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."

Just quickly glancing over the opinion that can be found here, it appears that Judge Covello used intermediate scrutiny to decide in favor of Connecticut and relied upon the 2nd Circuit's ruling in Kachalsky v. Cacace.

Covello, agreeing with the plaintiffs, concluded that the weapons and magazines are commonly owned and legally used in Connecticut and elsewhere. But he parted company with the plaintiffs when he wrote that the state's ownership and sales ban is justified when the government's goal of reducing violence is measured against the ban's impingement on Second Amendment rights.

The Second Amendment rights of gun owners are adequately protected by the large number of alternate weapons that can be used for protection, hunting and sports events, he wrote.

On several occasions, Covello adopted the state's arguments that assault weapons are designed, not for cosmetic purposes, but for "lethality." And he referred to an affidavit by a state expert who asserted that "Connecticut's bans on assault weapons and large capacity magazines, and particularly its ban on (large capacity magazines), have the potential to prevent and limit shootings in the state over the long run."

5 comments:

I actually take a position that not many would agree with. I believe that the police powers of a state allow more restrictions of particular weapons as opposed to the federal government. Along with that position I'd mention that the stqates are then forced to deal with their reactions.

In this particular case, I can't imagine that anyone, using 'strict' scrutiny can decide that a pan on any particular weapon advances a states' interest.

Assault weapon bans that target specific features (e.g., telescoping stocks, pistol grips, muzzle devices, etc.) will never be defeated in court by arguing that the firearms themselves are in “common use.” Indeed, the so-called common use standard will likely only prove useful where large classes of firearms are concerned (e.g., handguns, rifles and shotguns; maybe manual vs. semi-automatic).